Kant and Dignity in Modern Debates
The next chapter we are looking at is “Dignity and Treating Others Merely as Means” by Samuel Kerstein. In it, he examines traditional Kantian interpretations of Kant’s Formula of Humanity. He then adds his own new perspective, which he calls KID. KID adds requirements to analyzing moral actions that make Kantian thought more applicable to modern philosophical questions such as physician-assisted suicide. He centers the idea of inherent human value, or dignity, and how interactions can respect or disrespect the personhood of others.
The word dignity appears in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights five times but is left undefined. Kant also deals with the concept of dignity in his Formula of Humanity. Kant states that people should be treated as an end in themselves and have the right not to be treated merely as means. Essentially, humans have an inherent and incomparable worth called dignity. No condition of personality, skill, or usefulness decreases or increases the inherent worth of personhood. Dignity is incomparable, meaning there is nothing that can be exchanged for equal worth. Equally, you cannot compare the life of one person against a group, as dignity is not quantifiable; it is an unconditional trait of being a person.
Only people can have dignity. Kant defines personhood as possessing rational thoughts and the capacity to work towards an end or goal. This interpretation implies that it is morally impermissible for one person to sacrifice their own life to save several others, as the other people cannot be seen as more valuable than one life because the value of human lives cannot be weighed or compared. Additionally, a thinking being from another planet could be considered a person. So could a computer of sufficient complexity. On the other hand, a dead human would not be considered a person, nor would someone who is brain-dead in a hospital.
KID adds the qualifications that dignity is a special status possessed by persons, and people should not treat others as mere means. We should treat others as having an unconditional and preeminent value in order to respect the status of dignity. A person is treating someone else as merely a means if the person cannot consent to the use and cannot share the end goal. Dr. Kerstein also defines human worth as preeminent but not incomparable, meaning 10,000 people would be worth more than one, but that one still has inherent value.
One example Dr. Kerstein presents is the issue of anonymous biospecimen research. If someone consents to donate blood for a certain research project, is it moral to give those samples with identifying data removed to a third party for new research? According to KID, this would be a case of using someone as mere means. The donors did not consent to third-party research, nor can they share the goals of a research project they do not know about. Additionally, there are cases when donors’ specimens are used irresponsibly or to further research that actively goes against the donor’s beliefs or interests.
While sharing specimens anonymously is legal, whether or not it is right is still debated. In 2004 the Havasupai people sued the University of Arizona, which had used samples collected under the guise of diabetes research to study various phenomena, including genetic disposition to schizophrenia and inbreeding. The samples and data had been shared with several other research teams as well. The suit was settled for $700,000 in 2010. Yet KID does not condemn all non-consensual participation in research. For example, a doctor can justify treating an unconscious trauma patient with an experimental procedure if that is genuinely their best chance at survival. This is because, while the patient can’t consent to be used, they are likely to share the end goal of preserving their life.
Dr. Kerstein also applies this ideology to the ongoing debate surrounding physician-assisted suicide. According to traditional Kantian thought, there is no moral justification for ending your own life. KID looks at the issue with more nuance. According to this framework, it is wrong to continue a patient to continue life-sustaining treatment against their will. Forcing them to keep living against their wishes would be treating them as mere means. If the end goal of the physician is keeping the patient alive, but the patient does not consent to treatment, and does not share the goal of wanting to live, then treating them that way is immoral. If the patient is of sound mind and consistently expresses a desire to end their suffering, the physician should comply, as not helping would equate to using the patient for the physician’s personal gain in the form of comfort.
Dealing with Kant in a way that adds nuance is an interesting tactic. Much of Kant’s work searches for universal rules about morality and often excludes conversations about context and individual circumstances. KID, on the other hand, takes some of Kant’s ideas about dignity and reworks them into a framework that can more easily be applied to the complex philosophical debates that exist in the modern age. Regardless, the debates are ongoing and unsettled.
About the Author
Stella Hudson is a Graduate Assistant with the Baha’i Chair for World Peace. She graduated from the College of William and Mary in 2021 with a B.A. in English. She will graduate from the University of Maryland with her MLIS in spring 2023.